Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Hi,In Donald Scotts lecture "Cosmic Power Lines Part 2 | EU2015", on this link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPNMoalTTVE&app=desktopand in the end of the spech, at 49.03 min. there is a picture of how the Birkeland web is supposed to look, and in it are the contours of a human body.Is that image an expression of an official opinion hold by the EU theory?I think that it is very likely that the cosmos we are looking into, when we look at the stars and the space, is in fact the micro cosmos in a giant living being.Is there someone who know why Donald Scott has this picture in his lecture? Rickard

Hi rickard,I interpret the end of that video as having the message that the Earth is electrically connected to the Sun which is connected to the galaxy which is connected to other galaxies and so on. We, as part of the Earth, are therefore electrically connected to the Universe. I do not think that the purpose of the video was to imply anything other than to emphasize the ubiquity of electrical connectivity, that is circuits.

Once you go beyond "science" into metaphysics I am sure that many people in and out of the EU would have a wide variety of opinions and thoughts.

nick c wrote:Hi rickard,I interpret the end of that video as having the message that the Earth is electrically connected to the Sun which is connected to the galaxy which is connected to other galaxies and so on. We, as part of the Earth, are therefore electrically connected to the Universe. I do not think that the purpose of the video was to imply anything other than to emphasize the ubiquity of electrical connectivity, that is circuits.

Once you go beyond "science" into metaphysics I am sure that many people in and out of the EU would have a wide variety of opinions and thoughts.

I see no reason for talking about "metaphysics" when it comes to the view of the universe as a living being. If that view is right it is a matter of interest for sience.

nick c wrote:In science a theory needs to be falsifiable.There needs to be an experiment or observation which has the potential to prove the proposition false.

rickard wrote:I see no reason for talking about "metaphysics" when it comes to the view of the universe as a living being. If that view is right it is a matter of interest for sience.

How would you test that?

In science we observe and try to understand what we see. The fact that we can not create a living being in a laboratory, it does not mean that living beings does not exist.In the same way as standard astronomers do not see the electric phenomenons that penetrate the universe, just becaus they do not know what to look for, the EU theorist that is not open for the possibility that universe is alive, will newer see life there, even if it is visible in front of his eyes.

The fact that we can not create a living being in a laboratory, it does not mean that living beings does not exist.

You omitted something. I wrote "by experiment or observation." We cannot create a living being in the lab but we certainly can "observe" living beings.

But how can we observe the Universe as a living being? We would have to somehow go "outside" of the Universe. Since the Universe is by definition everything that is, an outside would have to be something that exists separate from the Universe, that is a contradiction in terms.

Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.

But how can we observe the Universe as a living being? We would have to somehow go "outside" of the Universe. Since the Universe is by definition everything that is, an outside would have to be something that exists separate from the Universe, that is a contradiction in terms.

It is a preconseption to think that an observation can only be made from the "outside". Since we are living in the universe all observations, of its parts, or of its totality, are in reality made from "the inside".

t is a preconseption to think that an observation can only be made from the "outside". Since we are living in the universe all observations, of its parts, or of its totality, are in reality made from "the inside".

True, relevant observations can be made from the inside, but my point was that there can be no "outside" to the Universe, if we accept the definition that the U is "everything that exists." Don't living beings exist within an environment?

Since the discussion here concerns your suggestion that the Universe is a living being, this thread has been moved to the NIAMI board.

t is a preconseption to think that an observation can only be made from the "outside". Since we are living in the universe all observations, of its parts, or of its totality, are in reality made from "the inside".

True, relevant observations can be made from the inside, but my point was that there can be no "outside" to the Universe, if we accept the definition that the U is "everything that exists." Don't living beings exist within an environment?

Since the discussion here concerns your suggestion that the Universe is a living being, this thread has been moved to the NIAMI board.

You seemms to be an ignorant person with a very limited view of life. And I think you are misusing your power as a moderator by moving the threds that reflects on questions you do not understand, to the "NIAMI". But I forgive you